The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaints and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of real estate appraisers in the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, part II, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaints, Respondent has been a certified residential real estate appraiser, and has been issued license number RD 1226. Respondent has been licensed since 1991 and has no history of disciplinary action taken against his license. He trades as Rhea Appraisals, Inc., located in Gainesville, Florida. For the period from October 23, 2009, through May 12, 2010, Respondent was the supervising appraiser for registered trainee appraiser Leslie Corey Bullard. From October 8, 2009, through at least July 2011, he also supervised registered trainee appraiser Beverly Sanders Archer. Respondent was Mr. Bullard's first supervising appraiser. The Program Alachua County elected to participate in the federally- funded Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP"), which is administered on the state level by the Department of Community Affairs. To that end, Alachua County contracted with Meridian Community Services Group ("Meridian") to assist in the implementation of the program. In a nutshell, the NSP is a program by which the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funding for local governments to acquire properties in order to rehabilitate them and re-sell them to low-to-moderate-income households, or to rent them to very low-income households. As explained at hearing, properties that are acquired through the program cannot be sold for more than the costs of acquisition, rehabilitation, and "soft costs." As a result, the local government can only purchase the property at one percent or below the appraised value. In 2010, Alachua County solicited bids for appraisers to appraise properties that it considered buying through the NSP. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., obtained a contract to appraise 20 of the properties for the program. Corey Bullard was involved in the procurement of the contract to perform the appraisals. The listing price for the properties was generally the price listed in the multiple listing service ("MLS"). Alachua County had instructed that the offer for the properties considered for purchase was to be at the listing price. Once the appraisal was performed, if it appraisal did not come in at within one percent of the listing price, then the offer is amended to reflect one percent below the appraisal. If the seller does not agree to the change, that property is not purchased. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., was to be paid $225.00 for each property appraised. Payment for the appraisal was not dependant on the results of the appraisal. At issue in these cases are the appraisals for three properties. For each of these properties, two appraisals were actually performed. The Initial Appraisals An appraisal was communicated by Rhea Appraisals, Inc., for a property located at 3009 NE 11th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida (Property 1, related to Case No. 11-3007), on April 8, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 13). The appraisal report is signed by Cory Bullard and by Respondent as his supervisor, and the front summary sheet lists Corey Bullard as the appraiser. The appraisal indicates that the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales took place on April 2, 2010, which is listed as the effective date of the report, and the appraisal is signed by both Mr. Bullard and Respondent on April 8, 2010. The appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $52,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $65,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Corey Bullard provided assistance in the gathering of data, photographing and entering data into this report." Included in the appraisal's certification are the following statements: My employment and/or compensation for performing this appraisal or any future or anticipated appraisals was not conditioned on any agreement or understanding, written or otherwise, that I would report or present analysis supporting a predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum value, a range or direction in value, a value that favors the cause of any party, or the attainment of a specific result or occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending mortgage loan application). I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individuals in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of this appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore any change made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no responsibility for it. An appraisal report for a property located at 12017 NW 164th Terrace, Alachua, Florida (Property 2) was communicated on April 6, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, related to Case No. 11- 3008). The appraisal report is signed by Corey Bullard and by Respondent as his supervisor, and the front summary sheet lists Mr. Bullard as the appraiser. The appraisal indicates that the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales took place on April 2, 2010, which is listed as the effective date of the appraisal, and the appraisal is signed by both Respondent and Mr. Bullard on April 6, 2010. This appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $75,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $105,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Corey Bullard provided assistance in the gathering of data, photographing and entering date into this report. Appraiser won the bid for 20 properties from Meridian Community Services for $225 each." Like the report for Property 1, the appraisal certification contained the statements identified in finding of fact 15. Rhea Appraisals, Inc., also issued an appraisal report for property located at 2923 NE 11th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida (Property 3, related to Case No. 11-3009), signed by Respondent on April 8, 2010 (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). The report indicates that the date of the inspection of the property and of the comparable sales, and effective date of the report, is April 5, 2010. This appraisal report provides an opinion of value of $54,000. The list price for the property, and thus the offer made by the County, was $69,900. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification state that "Beverly Archer, state registered trainee appraiser #RT2255 provided assistance in the gathering of data, measuring and photographing the subject dwelling, and drafting information into the URAR." Like the report for Properties 1 and 2, the appraisal certification contained the statements identified in finding of fact 15. The Second Appraisals Subsequently, a second appraisal was developed by Rhea Appraisals, Inc., for each of these properties. Property 1 (11-3007) A second report developed for Property 1 (Petitioner's Exhibit 14), has an invoice attached to the front, and the summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser. The appraisal gives an opinion of value of $66,000, compared to the County's offer of $65,000. The second appraisal lists the effective date of the appraisal as April 2, 2010, and the date of the signature and report as April 8, 2010. These dates are the same as those listed on the appraisal with value of $52,000. There are no notations in the Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification section of the report, and while the appraiser's certification includes the same statement quoted as paragraph 19 in finding of fact 15, the first statement, although similar, states: 6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following additional differences: On page one of the report, in response to the question, "[a]re there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect the livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property?", the statement "[s]ubject is not functional in the current state as of inspection date" has been deleted in the second appraisal. In the first report, the condition of comparable sale 1 is listed as "superior." In the second report, it is listed as "inferior." In the first report, the condition for comparable sale 2 is listed as "average." In the second report, it is listed as "inferior." In the first report, the condition of comparable sale 4 is listed as "superior." In the second report, it is listed as "average." In the first report, the condition of what was described as comparable sale 6 is listed as "average." In the second report, the original comparable sale 5 is deleted and comparable sale 6 is listed as comparable 5. Its condition is described as "inferior." Respondent's work papers to not provide an explanation for the changes made from the first report to the second report for this property. Property 2 (No. 11-3008) The second appraisal for Property 2 has an invoice for $225 attached to the front, and the summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser, as opposed to Corey Bullard. The opinion of value is $105,000, which matches the initial offer by the County. The report contains two different effective dates: on page 2 the report states that the effective date is April 2, 2010, while the signature block on page 6 indicates that the effective date is April 6, 2010. The date of the signature and report is April 14, 2010. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification are the same as those listed in the initial report, and the appraiser's certification includes the same statements quoted in paragraph 15. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following differences: In the first report, the estimated cost to cure the stated deficiencies was listed as $20,000.00. In the second report, this amount is reduced to $15,000.00. In the first report, the condition adjustment for comparable sale 1 is -$27,389.00, for a gross adjustment of 41 percent. In the second report, the condition adjustment was -$6,389, for a gross adjustment of 23.2 percent. The location adjustment for comparable sale 1 is changed from -$10,000 in the first report to no adjustment at all in the second report. The condition adjustment in the first report for comparable sale 2 is -$40,000.00. In the second report, it is listed as -$25,000.00. The location description for comparable sale 2 is listed in the first report as "urban/sup." In the second report, it is listed as "suburban/sup." The location adjustment for comparable sale 2 is listed in the first report, as -$20,000.00. In the second report, it is listed as -$10,000.00. The condition for comparable sale 3 is changed from "superior" in the first report to "average" in the second report. The condition adjustment for comparable sale 3 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. The room adjustment for comparable sale 3 is listed in the first report as -$4,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$2,000. The location description for comparable sale 4 is listed in the first report as "suburban/sup" and changed in the second report to "suburban." The location adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed as -$10,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. The room adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed in the first report as +$4,000.00. It is changed in the second report to +$2,000.00. The basement adjustment for comparable sale 4 is listed as -$10,000.00 in the first report, and as -$5,000.00 in the second report. The condition adjustment for comparable sale 5 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$15,000.00. The location adjustment for comparable sale 5 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to -$10,000.00. The condition of comparable sale 6 is listed in the first report as "superior." It is changed in the second report to "average." The condition adjustment for comparable sale 6 is listed in the first report as -$20,000.00. It is changed in the second report to no adjustment. Respondent's work papers for Property 2 do not provide any explanation for the changes noted above. The second report for Property 3 (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) also has an invoice attached, which states "summary complete." The summary sheet lists Hugh Rhea as the appraiser. The appraisal gives an opinion of value of $71,000, compared to the County's offer of $69,900. The second appraisal lists the effective date of the appraisal as April 5, 2010, and the date of the signature and report as April 8, 2010. These dates are the same as those listed on the appraisal with value of $54,000. The Comments on Appraisal and Report Identification are the same as those listed in the initial report, and the appraiser's certification includes the same statements quoted in paragraph 15. No explanation is given as to why the second report was generated. However, the second report contains the following differences: The first report contains six comparable sales. The second contains only four, and of those four, only two (those with the highest value) from the first report were included in the second report. The property located at 2610 NE 12th Street was listed as comparable sale 4 in the first report and as comparable sale in the second report. The gross living adjustment for this property was listed as -$2,025.00, while in the second report it is listed as -$1,620.00. With respect to this same property, the carport adjustment listed in the first report is +$1,500.00, and is listed as +$2,000.00 in the second report. The property located at 2703 NE 11th Street was listed as comparable sale 6 in the first report and as comparable sale in the second report. The condition adjustment for this property is changed from no adjustment in the first report to +$10,900.00 in the second report. With respect to this comparable sale, the gross living adjustment listed in the first report is -$7,125.00 while it is listed as -$2,340.00 in the second report. In the first report, as part of the cost approach to estimating value, the remaining estimated life for Property 3 is listed as 17 years, while in the second report it is listed as 32 years. Similarly, the depreciation figure listed in the first report is $94,524.00, while in the second report it is listed as $76,797.00. Respondent's work papers for Property 3 provide no explanations for the changes listed above. The Explanations All three of the initial appraisals, as well as all three of the second appraisals, state that the price of the property was to be determined by the appraisals, and that the appraiser had requested a copy of the contract and was told they would be forwarded at a later time. After submission of the first appraisals, Corey Bullard testified that he received a telephone call from Esrone McDaniels from Meridian regarding the opinions of value, indicating that the opinions were too low. Mr. McDaniels does not recall such a conversation. What is clear, however, is that at some point Mr. McDaniels spoke to Mr. Rhea regarding the program to explain the mechanics of the process for the NSP. On April 13, 2010, Mr. McDaniels sent an e-mail to Mr. Rhea with the title "Alachua County Properties." The e-mail contained a table listing nine properties, including Properties 1-3. The table contained columns listing the property addresses; the initial offer amount; the final acquisition amount (if the sale was completed); and the appraised value. The appraised values listed in the chart for Properties 1-3 were the opinions of value listed in the first reports described, i.e., the lower values. Along with the chart was the following message: Mr. Rhea - - per our conversation, please find the information requested. Should you have any questions, please give me a call. As stated, per the program requirements, our properties must be purchased at or below 99% of the appraised value. For example, since HUD won't adjust the purchase price, the initial offer should be a minimum 99% of the appraised value. Therefore, the appraisal should represent 1% above the initial offer price above. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Mr. Bullard was aware of the preparation of the second reports and was not comfortable with them being developed. He made excuses not to return to work, pass protected his electronic signature and filed a complaint against Respondent with the Department. Mr. Bullard also testified that Respondent's electronic signature was not pass-protected, and that all of the office staff had access to it. No evidence was presented to refute this statement. However, there is also no evidence that Mr. Bullard ever used Respondent's electronic signature without his consent, or that he failed to supervise Bullard's work. To the contrary, Mr. Bullard testified that for the two appraisals with which he was involved, Respondent provided supervision and approved the appraisals before they were communicated to the client. While the second appraisal reports for two of the three properties indicate that the date of the signature predated the e-mail from Esrone McDaniels, the only appraisal values listed in the e-mail are for the original, lower values. From the totality of the evidence, it is found that the only plausible explanation is that the appraisals were backdated to reflect an earlier effective date. Mr. McDaniel vehemently denied that he ever told Respondent to "hit a certain value with an appraisal, saying "Absolutely not. I don't have the authority to do that and I would never do that." He believed that the underlined sentence in his e-mail was part of his attempt to "explain the program, period," and was one example to drive across the one-percent federal requirement. Mr. Rhea, on the other hand, in his response to the Department's complaint, stated the following: Let's start with the orders or bids, Alachua County was allotted 3 to 4 million dollars to buy property across all of Alachua County but they had to be foreclosed, bank owned or short sales. . . . The properties in questioned [sic] are HUD or Fannie Mae owned properties. When Fannie Mae has a property listed before it goes on the market, they have 3 BPO's done plus an appraisal, then they set an asking price. Our assignment was to inspect the properties, check the repairs needed and then value the property "as is" knowing the property is contracted at the asking price. With 3 BPO's and appraisal to back it up the Realtor's contracted the house knowing this plus they also knew the county was mandated to purchase at that price. What Mr. Bullard did not understand and still doesn't, the assignment for the 20 appraisals scope of work was to concur with the work and valuation that already had been done. The first appraisal done did not come in at $50,000 and then I change the value. Mr. Bullard said the property is $50,000 and I told him he was wrong and that did not set well with him. . . . * * * About the conversation with Mr. Esrone McDaniel's, [sic] we talk about what the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners was mandated to do with the money. The properties have been contracted and he asked me whether I could come within 1% of the value. I told him I have a range of value of 5% so I said I thought I could. This is when I knew that Mr. Bullard did not get a handle on what the assignment was all about. The e-mail that Mr. Bullard was referring to, stated the program requirements, which is what Esrone and I talked about and Mr. Bullard took it out of context stating that I would help him out. Mr. Bullard told me at the start that he knew what the county wanted and come to find out, he did not have a clue. Although Respondent indicated in his letter that the scope of the project was "to concur with the work and valuation" that had already been performed, this scope is not reflected in the description contained in any of the six appraisals. To the contrary, the appraisals on their face indicate that no predetermined value is at issue. From the totality of the evidence, it is found that Respondent issued the second appraisals in each case for the purpose of confirming a predetermined value, i.e., the list price for each of the properties, as communicated to him in Esrone McDaniels' e-mail of April 13, 2010. The Applicable Standards Property appraisers are required to adhere to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), which are developed by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. The USPAP Ethics Rule is divided into four sections: conduct, management, confidentiality, and recordkeeping. The conduct section provides in pertinent part: Conduct: An appraiser must perform assignments with impartiality, objectivity, and independence, and without accommodation of personal interests. An appraiser: must not perform an assignment with bias; must not advocate the cause or interest of any party or issue; must not accept an assignment that includes the reporting of predetermined opinions and conclusions; . . . The management section of USPAP provides in pertinent part: Management: An appraiser must not accept an assignment, or have a compensation arrangement for an assignment, that is contingent on any of the following: the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value); a direction in assignment results that favors the cause of the client; the amount of a value opinion; the attainment of a stipulated result (e.g., that the loan closes, or taxes are reduced); or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the appraiser's opinions and specific to the assignment's purpose. According to Michael Adnot, the Department's expert witness, these USPAP standards require an appraiser to be independent, impartial, and objective, and an appraiser cannot advocate the cause of a client or pre-determine a value. Moreover, concurrence with a prior appraisal cannot be a condition of an assignment. If an appraiser feels pressure to reach a certain result, he or she should not take the assignment. Mr. Adnot's testimony is credited. Based upon the evidence presented, it is found that Respondent developed and communicated the second reports for all three properties with the intent of providing appraisal reports that came within one percent of the selling price, i.e., a predetermined value. The investigative costs for these three cases were as follows: for Case No. 11-3007, costs are $1,303.50; for Case No. 11-3008, costs of investigation are $1,501.50 and for Case No. 11-3009, costs total $1,336.50.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated section 475.624(2) and (15) as alleged in Case Nos. 11-3007, 11-3008, and 11-3009; suspending his license to practice as a certified residential real estate appraiser for a period of 3 years, followed by 5 years of probation; imposing a $6,000 fine and imposing costs in the amounts identified in finding of fact number 49, for a total of $4,141.50 in costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since January 12, 2005, a Florida-certified residential real estate appraiser, holding license number RD 4946. He has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action. During the time he has been licensed, Respondent has supervised various registered trainee appraisers, including Julio Potestad, who worked under Respondent's supervision from March 17, 2006, through February 26, 2007, and has remained "very good friends" with him.4 At all times material to the instant case, the Subject Property has been zoned by the City of Miami as R-1, which allows only single-family residences. In January of 2006, Respondent was working as a residential real estate appraiser for Appraisals of South Florida, Inc., a business owned by Anthony Pena, when he received an assignment to conduct an appraisal of the Subject Property for Coast to Coast Mortgage Brokerage, Inc. (Coast). Gustavo Ceballos had agreed to buy the Subject Property from Jorge Vazquez for $395,000, and Mr. Ceballos had applied for a mortgage loan from Coast to make the purchase. The purpose of the appraisal was to determine whether the market value of the Subject Property justified Coast's making the loan. The written appraisal request from Coast was dated January 24, 2006, and directed to Mr. Potestad, who was working for Mr. Pena at the time. It indicated that the "[p]roperty [t]ype" of the Subject Property was "SFR" (meaning single-family residence). Attached to the request was a copy of a signed, but undated, copy of a "[s]ales contract" for the Subject Property. Using a pre-printed form, Respondent completed a Summary Appraisal Report (Report), dated January 31, 2006, containing his opinion that the market value of the Subject Property as of January 27, 2006 (the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection" of the Subject Property) was $395,000 (which happened to be the contract price). He arrived at his opinion by conducting a sales comparison analysis and a cost analysis (but not an income analysis). On January 5, 2006, just three weeks and a day prior to the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection," City of Miami Code Enforcement Officer Maria Lugo had inspected the interior and exterior of the Subject Property at the request of the owner, Mr. Vazquez, who had contacted Ms. Lugo after she had "posted on the property" a code violation notice. Ms. Lugo's January 6, 2006, inspection had revealed that the Subject Property was not a single-family residence, but rather a nonconforming four-unit, multi-family structure (with each unit having an exterior door and there being no interior access between units) and, further, that various additions and improvements (including additional bathrooms and kitchens, a metal awning and concrete slab in the rear of the property, a driveway on the west side of the front of the property, and a "garage conversion") had been made without a building permit having been obtained. These were City of Miami code violations for which the owner of the property could be fined. Extensive work (including demolition work), requiring building permits, needed to be done to correct these code violations and reconvert the structure to a legal, single-family dwelling. As of January 27, 2006 (the reported "date of [Respondent's] inspection"), no building permit to perform work on the Subject Property had been obtained, and the code violations Ms. Lugo had found 22 days earlier had not yet been corrected. As he indicated in the Report, Respondent appraised the Subject Property as a single-family residence (with four bedrooms and three baths), even though, as of January 27, 2006, it was a multi-family structure (as an appropriate inspection by a reasonably prudent residential real estate appraiser would have revealed).5 Doing so was a substantial and fundamental error that was fatal to the credibility of Respondent's market value opinion. The first page of Respondent's Report contained five sections: "Subject," "Contract," "Neighborhood," "Site," and "Improvements." The "Subject" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: Property Address: 7150 SW 5th Street City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: 33144-2709 * * * Occupant: X Owner _ Tenant _ Vacant * * * Assignment Type: X Purchase Transaction _ Refinance Transaction _ Other (describe) Lender/Client: Coast to Coast Mortgage Brokerage, Inc. . . . . Is the subject property currently offered for sale or has it been offered for sale in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal? X Yes _ No Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s): The subject property has a prior sale on July 2005 for $349,000. Although he provided the "offering price" and "date" of the "prior sale," Respondent did not reveal, in this section, the "data source(s) [he] used" to obtain this information. He did, however, disclose this "data source" (ISC NET6) in a subsequent section of the Report (the "Sales Comparison Approach" section). The "Contract" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: I X did _ did not analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the results of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not performed. The subject property is under contract for $395,000[;] financial assistance noted. Contract Price: $395,000 Date of Contract: No[t] Provided Is the property seller the owner of public record: X Yes _ No Data Sources: Public Records Is there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or down payment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower? X Yes _ No If Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe the items to be paid: 4% seller contribution for closing costs and prepaids. As part of the appraisal development process, "[a]ppraisers are required to obtain a full copy of the contract [for sale] that's signed and dated." The contract for sale that Respondent analyzed, and which he has maintained in his work file on the Subject Property (Work File), however, while signed by Mr. Vazquez and Mr. Ceballos, was incomplete and not dated. Paragraph 21 of this incomplete and undated contract for sale provided as follows: ADDITIONAL TERMS SELLER WILL PAY 4% OF PURCHASE PRICE FOR BUYER CLOSING COSTS PROPERTY SOLD AS IS CONDITIONS In the "Neighborhood" section of the Report, Respondent identified the boundaries of the "neighborhood" in which the Subject Property was located, and he stated that the properties in the neighborhood were either "One-Unit" (95%) or "Commercial" (5%) properties and that the neighborhood had no "2-4 Unit" or other "Multi-Family" structures.7 The following further representations, among others, were made in the "Neighborhood" section: Neighborhood Description: The subject is located in an established neighborhood consisting of 1 story ranch style homes similar to the subject in age, size and appeal. The subject neighborhood provides a good environment for the house being appraised. There are no factors that will negatively affect marketability of the subject property. Employment stability and convenience are reasonable. Market Conditions (including support for the above conclusions): The subject is in a market place in which residential properties similar to the subject take approximately 3 months to sell. Demand and [s]upply are in balance with a stable growth rate. These figures were obtained from the appraiser[']s observation of the marketing time for listing and sales within the immediate area and the ratio of the number of listings to sales. The "Site" section of the Report read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * View: Residential Specific Zoning Classification: R-1 Zoning Description: Single Family Residential Zoning Compliance: X Legal _ Legal Nonconforming (Grandfathered Use) _ No Zoning _ Illegal (describe) Is the highest and best use of subject property as improved (or as proposed per plans and specifications) the present use? X Yes _ No If no, describe. * * * Are there any adverse site conditions or external factors (easements, encroachments, environmental conditions, land use, etc.)? _ Yes X No If Yes, describe * * * In the "Improvements" section of the Report, Respondent indicated, among other things, that the Subject Property was a one-unit, ranch-style structure built in 1948, with an "effective age" of 20 years. Next to "Roof Surface" Respondent entered, "Shingles/Avg." Other information provided in this section included the following: Finished area above grade contains: 7 Rooms, 4 Bedrooms, 3 Bath(s) 2,249 Square Feet of Gross Living Area Above Grade. * * * Describe the condition of the property (including needed repairs, deterioration, renovation, remodeling, etc.). The subject conforms to the neighborhood in terms of age, design and construction. Based upon an inspection performed by the appraiser on the subject property[,] [it] does appear to have roof damage resulting from Hurricane Wilma. The property's roof exhibits many missing and/or detached roof shingles.[8] The appraiser bases these findings only upon a visual inspection of the subject. A thorough roof inspection should be done to properly assess the full extent of the damage. The Hurricane does not appear to have negatively affected the subject area's economic base. Are there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property? _ Yes X No If Yes, describe Does the property generally conform to the neighborhood (functional utility, style, condition, use, construction, etc.)? X Yes _ No If No, describe[9] The second page of Respondent's Report contained two sections: "Sales Comparison Approach" and "Reconciliation." In the "Sales Comparison Approach" section of the Report, Respondent identified the three "comparable" properties that he examined to estimate (using a sales comparison analysis) the market value of the Subject Property, and he provided information about these comparables, as well as the Subject Property. The following were the three "comparables" Respondent selected for his sales comparison analysis: Comparable Sale 1, located at 7140 Southwest 7th Avenue in Miami (.14 miles from the Subject Property); Comparable Sale 2, located at 240 Southwest 69th Avenue in Miami (.28 miles from the Subject Property); and Comparable Sale 3, located at 7161 Southwest 5th Terrace in Miami (.06 miles from the Subject Property). According to the Report, these "comparables," as well as the Subject Property, were 56 to 58-year-old, single-family (one- unit) ranch-style residences in "average condition" situated on lots ranging in size from 6,000 square feet (the Subject Property and Comparable Sale 3) to 6,565 square feet (Comparable Sale 1). Comparative information relating to these "comparables" and the Subject Property was set forth in a grid (Sales Comparison Grid). On the "Date of Sale/Time" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: December 2005 Comparable Sale 2: November 2005 Comparable Sale 3: Sept. 2005 On the "Sale Price" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: $395,000 Comparable Sale 1: $380,000 Comparable Sale 2: $387,000 Comparable Sale 3: $390,000 On the "Sale Price/Gross Liv" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: $236.39 sq. ft.[10] Comparable Sale 1: $254.01 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 2: $195.65 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 3: $195.00 sq. ft. On the "Data Source(s)" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: ISC NET/MLX[11] Comparable Sale 2: ISC NET Comparable Sale 3: ISC NET/MLX On the "Verification Source(s)" line on the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Comparable Sale 1: Observation from street Comparable Sale 2: Observation from street Comparable Sale 3: Observation from street "Observation from street" is an unacceptable means of verifying sales price information. An appropriate "Verification Source" would be an individual involved in some way in the transaction or, alternatively, a public record. On the "Above Grade Room Count" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: 7 (Total); 4 (bdrms.); 3 (Baths). Comparable Sale 1: 7 (Total); 4 (bdrms.); 3 (Baths). Comparable Sale 2: 6 (Total); 3 (bdrms.); 2 (Baths). Comparable Sale 3: 8 (Total); 5 (bdrms.); 4 (Baths). Immediately to the right of the "Above Grade Room Count" entries for Comparable Sale 2, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, Respondent entered "+3,000." Immediately to the right of the "Above Grade Room Count" entries for Comparable Sale 3, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, Respondent entered "-3,000." On the "Gross Living Area" line of the Sales Comparison Grid, Respondent entered the following: Subject Property: 2,249 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 1: 1,496 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 2: 1,978 sq. ft. Comparable Sale 3: 2,000 sq. ft. Because its "Gross Living Area" was 753 square feet (or approximately one-third) less than that of the Subject Property, Comparable Sale 1 was "way too small in comparison to the Subject Property to [have] be[een] utilized as a comparable sale." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 1, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+18,825." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 2, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+6,775." Immediately to the right of the "Gross Living Area" square footage entered for Comparable Sale 3, in the "+(-) $ Adjustment" column, was the entry "+6,225." The upward adjustments Respondent made to the "comparables'" sales prices to account for the Subject Property's larger "Gross Living Area" amounted to $25 for each square foot that the "Gross Living Area" of the Subject Property exceeded that of the "comparables." Nowhere in the Report, or in Respondent's Work File, is there any indication of how or why Respondent selected this $25 a square foot price adjustment. While ISC NET/FARES provides "Gross Living Area" square footage information (that is gleaned from public records), MLX does not. In his appraisal of the Subject Property, Respondent appropriately used "Gross Living Area" square footage information from ISC NET/FARES for Comparable Sales 1 and 2; however, for Comparable Sale 3, rather than using the ISC NET/FARES "Gross Living Area" square footage (which was 1,512 square feet), he instead inappropriately relied on the square footage figure (2,000) for "Total Area" (which is different than "Gross Living Area") found in the MLX listing for the property. This was a substantial error negatively impacting the soundness of the adjustment he made for "Gross Living Area" to obtain an "Adjusted Sale Price" for Comparable Sale 3. The MLX listing for Comparable Sale 3 also contained the following "remarks": DON'T MISS THIS BEAUTY. PLENTY OF SPACE FOR THE IN-LAWS. CALL LISTING AGENT. CAN USE LIKE 2 IN LAWS AND MAIN HOUSE APPROXIMATELY 2000 SF. HOUSE HAVE 3 BEDROOMS 2 BATHS. YOU CAN USE 2 EFFICIENCIES AND THE HOUSE. HOUSE TOTALLY REMODELED NEW BATH, NEW KITCHEN. These "remarks" suggest that Comparable Sale 3 actually consisted of not one, but three separate dwelling units ("2 efficiencies" and a "main house"), contrary to the representation made by Respondent in the Report, and it therefore should not have been used as a "comparable" to appraise a single-family residence (which Respondent, in his Report, mistakenly represented the Subject Property to be). The following "Adjusted Sale Price[s]" for the three "comparables" were set forth on the last line of the Sales Comparison Grid: Comparable Sale 1: $398,825; Comparable Sale 2: $396,775; and Comparable Sale 3: $393,225. At the end of the "Sales Comparison Approach" section (beneath the grid) was the following "Summary of Sales Comparison Approach": The subject property is similar to all of the comparable sales which were carefully selected after an extensive search in and out of the subject's defined market. This search consisted of analyzing numerous closed sales and narrowing the list down to the most similar. After close evaluation of the comparable sales utilized, equal consideration was given to all comparable sales in formulating an opinion of market value. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $395,000. In arriving at this appraised "value" of $395,000, Respondent made no adjustments for the damage to the Subject Property's roof noted in the "Improvements" section of the Report or for the "4% seller contribution for closing costs" mentioned in the "Contract" section of the Report; neither did he provide an explanation as to why he had not made such adjustments. The first part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report read as follows: Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: $395,000; Cost Approach (if developed): $395,614; Income Approach (if developed): N/A Final reliance is given to the Sales Comparison Analysis due to the reliability of market data and which represents the motives of the typical purchaser [sic]. The Cost Approach although not as accurate, supports value. The Income Approach was not appropriate for this assignment. In developing his "Cost Approach" estimate of the market value of the Subject Property (referenced in the first part of the "Reconciliation" section), Respondent used a "replacement cost new" figure of $90 a square foot. There was nothing in the Report or Work File to support or explain his use of this figure. The second and final part of the "Reconciliation" section of the Report read as follows: This appraisal is made x "as is," _ subject to completion per plans and specifications on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the improvements have been completed, _ subject to the following repairs or alterations on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the repairs or alterations have been completed, or _ subject to the following required inspection based on the extraordinary assumption that condition or deficiency does not require alteration or repair: Subject to the Statement of Limiting Conditions and Appraiser's Certification attached. Based on a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property,[12] defined scope of work, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and appraiser's certification, my (our) opinion of the market value, as defined, of the real property that is the subject of this report is $395,000, as of January 27, 2006, which is the date of inspection and the effective date of this appraisal. The fourth page of the Report contained pre-printed boilerplate, including the following: This report form is designed to report an appraisal of a one-unit property or a one- unit property with an accessory unit . . . . * * * SCOPE OF WORK: The scope of work for this appraisal is defined by the complexity of this appraisal assignment and the reporting requirements of this appraisal report form . . . . The appraiser must, at a minimum: (1) perform a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, (2) inspect the neighborhood, (3) inspect each of the comparable sales from at least the street, research, verify, and analyze data from reliable public and/or privates sources, and report his or her analysis, opinions, and conclusions in this appraisal report. INTENDED USE: The intended use of this appraisal report is for the lender/client to evaluate the property that is the subject of the appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction. INTENDED USER: The intended user of this appraisal report is the lender/client. * * * STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification in this report is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: * * * 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensions of the improvements. The sketch is included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. * * * The appraiser has noted in this appraisal any adverse conditions (such as needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in this appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent physical deficiencies or adverse conditions of the property (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmental conditions, etc.) that would make the property less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist and for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, this appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusions for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that the completion, repairs, or alterations of the subject property will be performed in a professional manner. The fifth page of the Report contained additional pre- printed boilerplate in the form of an "Appraiser's Certification," wherein "the Appraiser [Respondent] certifie[d] and agree[d] that," among other things: I have, at a minimum, developed and reported this appraisal in accordance with the scope of work requirements stated in this appraisal report. I performed a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property. I reported the condition of the improvements in factual, specific terms. I identified and reported the physical deficiencies that could affect the livability, soundness or structural integrity of the property. I performed this appraisal in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at the time this appraisal report was prepared. I developed my opinion of the market value of the real property that is the subject of this report based on the sales comparison approach to value. I have adequate comparable market data to develop a reliable sales comparison approach for this appraisal assignment. I further certify that I considered the cost and income approaches to value but did not develop them, unless otherwise indicated in this report. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on any current agreement for sale for the subject property, any offering for sale of the subject property in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal, and the prior sales of the subject property for a minimum of three years prior to the effective date of this appraisal, unless otherwise indicated in this report. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on the prior sales of the comparable sales for a minimum of one year prior to the date of sale of the comparable sale, unless otherwise indicated in the report. I selected and used comparable sales that are locationally, physically, and functionally the most similar to the subject property. I have not used comparable sales that were the result of combining a land sale with the contract purchase price of a home that has been built or will be built on the land. I have reported adjustments to the comparable sales that reflect the market's reaction to the differences between the subject property and the comparable sales. I verified, from a disinterested source, all information in this report that was provided by parties who have a financial interest in the sale or financing of the subject property. I have knowledge and experience in appraising this type of property in this market area. I am aware of, and have access to, the necessary and appropriate public and private data sources, such as multiple listing services, tax assessment records, public land records and other such data sources for the area in which the property is located. I obtained the information, estimates, and opinions furnished by other parties and expressed in this appraisal report from reliable sources that I believe to be true and correct. I have taken into consideration factors that have an impact on value with respect to the subject neighborhood, subject property, and the proximity of the subject property to adverse influences in the development of my opinion of market value. I have noted in this appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmental conditions, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that I became aware of during research involved in performing this appraisal. I have considered these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value, and have reported on the effect of the conditions on the value and marketability of the subject property. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from this appraisal and, to the best of my knowledge, all statements and information in this appraisal report are true and correct. I stated in this appraisal report my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the assumptions and limiting conditions in this appraisal report. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or opinion of market value in this appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owner or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property or on any other basis prohibited by law. My employment and/or compensation for performing this appraisal or any future or anticipated appraisals was not conditioned on any agreement or understanding, written or otherwise, that I would report (or present analysis supporting) a predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum value, a range or direction in value, a value that favors the cause of any party, or the attainment of a specific result or occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending mortgage loan application). I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of this appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report.[13] I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore any change made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no responsibility for it. I identified the lender/client in this appraisal report who is the individual, organization, or agent for the organization that ordered and will receive this appraisal report. The lender/client may disclose or distribute this appraisal to the borrower; another lender at the request of the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; mortgage insurers;; government sponsored enterprises; other secondary market participants; data collection or reporting services; professional appraisal organizations; any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States; and any state, the District of Columbia, or other jurisdictions; without having to obtain the appraiser's or supervisory appraiser's (if applicable) consent. Such consent must be obtained before this appraisal report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party, including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. I am aware that any disclosure or distribution of this appraisal report by me or the lender/client may be subject to certain laws and regulations. Further, I am also subject to the provisions of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that pertain to disclosure or distribution by me. The borrower, another lender at the request of the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, government sponsored enterprises, and other secondary market participants may rely on this appraisal report as part of any mortgage finance transaction that involves any one or more of these parties. If this appraisal was transmitted as an "electronic record" containing my "electronic signature," as those terms are defined in applicable federal and/or state laws (excluding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile transmission of this appraisal report containing a copy or representation of my signature, the appraisal report shall be as effective, enforceable and valid as if a paper version of this appraisal report were delivered containing my original hand written signature. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation contained in this appraisal report may result in civil liability and/or criminal penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or both under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, et seq., or similar state laws. Directly beneath the foregoing boilerplate was Respondent's signature. No one else signed the Report, nor was any individual identified in the Report as having assisted Respondent. Appended to the Report was an pre-printed "Addendum," which read, in pertinent part, as follows: SCOPE OF APPRAISAL The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources, inspection of the subject property and neighborhood, and selection of comparable sales within the market area. The original source of the comparables is shown in the Data Source section of the market grid along with the source of confirmation, if available. The original source is presented first. The sources and data are considered reliable. When conflicting information was provided, the source deemed most reliable has been used. Data believed to be unbelievable was not included in this report nor was [it] used as a basis for the value conclusion. The Reproduction Cost is based on published cost indexes, such as Marshall Valuation Service, and supplemented by the appraiser's knowledge of the local market. * * * HIGHEST AND BEST USE The Highest and Best Use of a site is that reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. For improvements to represent[] the highest and best use of a site, they must be legally permitted, be financially feasible, be physically possible and provide[] more profit than any other use of the site would generate. SITE The improvements on the property are legal and conform to current zoning regulations. In the event of a loss by fire [] all improvements could be rebuilt without obtaining a zoning variance. The opinion of zoning compliance requirements expressed in this appraisal is based on the appraiser's inspections of the subject property and comparison to the appropriate zoning ordinance. This opinion does not represent a certification which can only be obtained from the proper jurisdictional authority. * * * ROOM LISTS The number of rooms, bedrooms, baths and lavatories is typical of houses in this neighborhood. Foyers, laundry rooms and all rooms below grade are excluded from the total room count. * * * CONDITION OF COMPONENTS Any opinion expressed in this appraisal pertaining to the condition of the appraised property's, or comparable property's components, is based on observation[s] made at the time of inspection. They rely on visual indicators as well as reasonable expectations as to adequacy and dictated by neighborhood standards relative to marketability. These observations do not constitute certification of condition, including roof or termite problems, which may exist. If certification is required, a properly licensed or qualified individual should be consulted. COST APPROACH The Cost Approach includes a land value analysis and the estimated replacement cost to construct, at current prices, a building with utility equivalent to the building being appraised, using modern materials, design, layout and current construction standards. Rates for the Cost Approach were calculated using Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook. Physical, functional and external inadequacies, as measured in the market, are deducted accordingly. The "as is" value of site improvements (driveway, Landscaping, etc.). represents their market contributory value as measured by a paired sales analysis. The Cost Approach is considered a supportive indicator of value. The subject[] site['s] value has been derived from market abstractions techniques applied to improved land sales from the subject market area, land sales as well as analysis of assessed value. [S]ubject[] land['s] total value ratio is common for properties in the subject[] market area and does not adversely affect marketability and/or value. DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Direct Sales Comparison Approach is based on the comparison of the subject with sales of similar type properties. Adjustments are made to these sales for differences with the subject. [T]his is generally considered the best indicator of value. * * * ADDITIONAL COMMENTS LIVING AREAS: The appraisal uses actual living area in the market analysis for both the subject and comparable sales properties. The living area utilized for the sales data has been abstracted from the Public Records/Tax Rolls listed square foot area data and may have been further modified by the field appraiser's observation of the actual improvements. DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS Digital photographs taken of the subject property and sales comparables were not enhanced or altered in any way, shape, or form. * * * ITEMS LEFT BLANK For the purpose of this appraisal report, an item left blank indicates this item does not apply to the subject property, indicates a (No or None) response, or indicates that the appraiser is not able to ascertain and/or is not qualified to furnish this information. * * * DATE OF APPRAISAL The date of the appraisal is the date of the last site inspection of the subject property. SUBJECT'S SKETCH All measurements of the subject's improvements have been rounded and the appraiser has tried to determine actual measurements as accurately as possible. This is not a survey and is not to be interpreted as a survey of the subject property. * * * The "sketch" of the Subject Property that Respondent appended to the Report did not accurately reflect the configuration and layout of the property, as of the effective date of the appraisal. On or about February 13, 2009, notwithstanding that Respondent had indicated in the Report (in the "Reconciliation" section thereof) that the appraisal was "made 'as is'" and not "subject to completion per plans and specifications," nor subject to any "repairs or alterations" being made, Respondent inexplicably issued an "Appraisal Update and/or Completion Report" (Supplemental Report) containing a "Certification of Completion," which read as follows: INTENDED USE: The intended use of this certificate of completion is for the lender/client to confirm that the requirements or conditions stated in the appraisal report referenced above have been met. INTENDED USER: The intended user of this certification of completion is the lender/client. HAVE THE IMPROVEMENTS BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL APPRAISAL REPORT? X Yes _ No If No, describe any impact on the opinion of market value. The subject property has been ready per plans and specifications. APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: I certify that I have performed a visual inspection on the subject property to determine if the conditions or requirements stated in the original appraisal have been satisfied. According to the Supplemental Report, Respondent conducted this "visual inspection" of the Subject Property on February 13, 2006. Contrary to the assertions made in the "Intended Use" and "Appraiser's Certification" sections of the "Certification of Completion," there were no "conditions" or "requirements" "stated in the original appraisal [report]." Any "plans and specifications" referenced in an original or updated appraisal report must be maintained in the appraiser's work file. Respondent's Work File contains no "plans and specifications," nor any other indication as to what, if any, post-Report repair or renovation work had been done on the Subject Property at the time of the issuance of the Supplemental Report.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through V of the Amended Administrative Complaint and revoking his residential real estate appraiser license. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board was and is the state agency responsible for the licensing of real estate appraisers in Florida and for the regulation of the real estate appraisal profession in this state. Respondent was a state certified residential real estate appraiser under license number RI 0000912, who was and still is in practice as a residential appraiser in Safety Harbor, Florida. On or about April 13, 1994, William Podolsky, Jr., a state certified appraiser employed by SMS, conducted an appraisal on property located at 4934 Bayway Drive, Hillsborough County, incident to a sale of the property. As a part of the addendum to his appraisal report, Mr. Podolsky recommended an inspection of the roof on the property be made to determine its estimated remaining life, but he was unable to do it. Sometime later, Ms. Levy, an employee of the Barnett Bank, which was i nvolved in the closing on the property, contacted SMS and left a message requesting the property be reappraised to include the roof because Mr. Podolsky, who had done the original appraisal, had not had time to get back and amend the appraisal to include the roof. Ms. Levy's message was given to Respondent when he got to the office about 1:00 PM that day. Consistent with Ms. Levy's request, Respondent, who was the lead appraiser at SMS, pulled the file on the property and found that Mr. Podolsky had done the original appraisal. Respondent claims he then contacted Mr. Podolsky through his beeper and told him the bank wanted a roof inspection. Mr. Podolsky wanted to know why and asked that Respondent call the bank and clarify the request. When Respondent called the bank he spoke with Ms. Levy who indicated it was because Mr. Podolsky had originally recommended such an inspection. Respondent asserts he again contacted Mr. Podolsky to report what he had learned. At that time, Podolsky reputedly said he could not do it at that time because he had to take his son to the doctor that afternoon. Respondent claims Podolsky asked him to do it for him. Podolsky claims he merely suggested Respondent get another inspection made. The fact is that Respondent, along with someone else from his office, went out to the property, looked at the roof, and, seeing new shingles, concluded the needed roof repairs had been done. He thereupon went back to the office and notified the Barnett Bank representative that the job had been done. He then notified Mr. Podolsky. Before checking the roof himself, Respondent advised Ms. Levy at Barnett Bank that Mr. Podolsky could not do the reappraisal as quickly as the bank needed it. He asked if the bank had any objection to him doing it and was advised there was none. Ms. Levy, at hearing, confirmed this, indicating she was satisfied that Respondent did the reappraisal and the work he had done was what the bank needed and was satisfactory, and the transaction went successfully to closing. There is no indication any defect was found in the title or the property and no financial loss was incurred by any party because of Respondent's action in issue. Before leaving, Respondent went to Podolsky's computer terminal and amended the appraisal report which Podolsky had entered into the computer to indicate that the reappraisal had been done. He did not sign his own name to the change and as a result, it appeared as though Podolsky had done the reinspection. This was not so. Respondent did not advise Mr. Podolsky of the computer entry. Respondent has at no time denied adding the statement regarding the reinspection to Mr. Podolsky's Addendum. He admits he failed to put his own name in the change, utilizing only the term, "appraiser." This was, he claims, an oversight and certainly not an attempt to mislead or confuse anybody. Nonetheless, when Mr. Podolsky found out that Respondent had made a change to his Addendum and had failed to attribute the change to himself, he reported the matter to his reviewing appraiser and supervisor. Mr. Podolsky was told the complaint would be handled internally and Podolsky was not to discuss it outside the office on pain of discipline. At that point, Mr. Podolsky decided to file a complaint with the Department and did so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Mark D. Genua, be found guilty of a culpably negligent violation of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and, thereby, of Section 475.624, Florida Statutes, and that he be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mark D. Genua 2437 Navarez Avenue Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Avenue Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, David J. Zachem, is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in Florida, having been issued license number 0194936. The last license issued was as a broker c/o Sunstate Tax Consultants, Inc., 220 East Madison Street #512, Tampa, Florida, Respondent, during times material, was licensed as a broker/salesperson with Gary Levone Hall, t/a Gary L. Hall & Associates, 243 Timberland Avenue, Longwood, Florida. On or about July 24, 1991, the Resolution Management Associates, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, engaged Henry Mazas, the principal of H.R. Mazas & Associates, an accounting firm to perform an appraisal of real property located in Seminole, Florida (called Seminole Landing) which was owned or controlled by the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, the federally affiliated agency which is selling off failed savings and loan associations financed or mortgaged properties. While Respondent was licensed as a broker/salesperson with Hall, Mazas engaged Respondent to assist in the appraisal of the Seminole Landing property. Respondent assisted Mazas by doing what is commonly referred to in the trade as the "leg work" such as visually inspecting the property, reviewing public records, compiling comparables and other raw data which was utilized by Mazas in completing his appraisal. Respondent signed on the appraisal letter evidencing his assistance as a consultant who assisted Mazas in completing his appraisal. C.W. Marlow, contracts manager of Resolution Management Associates, received a bill from Mazas for the appraisal service in the amount of $4,830.00, which amount was paid to Mazas on or about October 29, 1991. Mazas deposited the check into his account and thereafter paid Respondent $2,321.11 via a check dated November 5, 1991. On November 8, 1991, Respondent and his wife, Patricia Zachem, endorsed the check for payment. At the time that Respondent assisted Mazas in compiling the raw data to complete his appraisal, Mazas was unaware of Respondent's affiliation with Gary Hall. Respondent signed off on the appraisal to fully disclose to everyone concerned that he consulted with Mazas in compiling the raw data for the appraisal. Gary L. Hall, is a licensed real estate broker since approximately 1982. Hall has known Respondent since 1988. They are friends who assist and consult with each other primarily about political activities. Respondent placed his license with Hall as a matter of convenience and was never active in either buying, leasing or selling real property to the public. Respondent and Hall had no agreement respecting the splitting of fees that Respondent would earn for commissions that he received. According to Hall, Respondent "would have been able to keep the entire commissions that he receive for any work that he performed." Hall knew that Respondent was active in preparing appraisals when he became affiliated with his agency. Respondent is the holder of a real estate salesman's license since 1978 and a broker since 1979. Respondent while licensed as a broker, joined the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office. Respondent has been employed in two county property appraiser's offices (Broward and Pinellas counties). Respondent was a senior deputy in Broward County with his employment commencing sometime in 1981. He was so employed until January 1989 when he was employed by Pinellas County. In Pinellas County, Respondent was the chief deputy and the chief appraiser. Since 1980, Respondent has principally been a "mass appraiser" while working in Broward and Pinellas counties. Respondent is the qualifier for Sunstate Tax Consultants, which he is the president. Respondent is a Certified Florida Evaluator (CFE). To be qualified as a CFE, one must have worked in a property appraiser's office in the mass appraisal element for a period in excess of two years and have successfully passed four appraisal courses which are designated courses. Specifically, these courses are income to evaluation, the mechanical application of appraisals, appraisal assessment jurisdiction and vacant land. After successfully completing these courses, the property appraiser for whom the applicant is employed writes a letter of recommendation to the certification committee of the Department of Revenue. That committee reviews the applicant's qualifications and either grant or deny the CFE certificate. Respondent primarily placed his real estate license with Hall such that he could qualify as an expert in the numerous petitions filed with the Value Adjustment Board where the evaluation of properties are subject to litigation. Those appraisers who have an active broker license is an indication that they are fully qualified in the appraisal and real estate business. Respondent, as stated, never engaged in the typical brokerage business of buying, selling, leasing or renting property to the public. Specifically, Respondent's understanding with Hall was that if he engaged in any business that was governed by Petitioner, Hall would be notified. Respondent was never engaged to conduct an appraisal or to act as an appraiser for Mazas or the Resolution Management Associates. Respondent would have so advised Hall had he been involved in such a relationship or any activity that was governed by Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Eugene Davidson, an ad valorem tax consultant. was tendered and received as an expert appraiser. Davidson was one of three founders that founded the National Society of Fee Appraisers more than 35 years ago. Davidson holds a senior designation as an ASA member. Davidson is a member of the Institute of Real Estate Management and hold the designation as a certified property manager (CPM). Davidson is certified with Florida as a general real estate appraiser. Davidson was a professor at the University of Miami, the University of Florida and in the Bahamas (Nassau and Freeport). Davidson knows Respondent as a person on high morals and integrity and who is knowledgeable in real e stte and appraisinng. Davidson has known Respondent more than twelve years. An appraisal is the act or process of estimating value, or an opinion of value. Consulting is the act or process of providing information, analysis of real estate data and recommendations or conclusions on diversified problems in real estate other than estimating value. Respondent's engagement, to compile raw data, was as a consultant. He was not engaged, nor did he offer an opinion of value or an estimate of value. It is normal industry practice for consultants to sign appraisals when they provide or otherwise furnish significant information to the appraiser and, in doing so, complies with standard 2-3 of Chapter 475, Part II. See Sections 475.611 and 475.624, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I-IV of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1993.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 3, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency responsible for investigating complaints filed against registered, licensed, or certified real estate appraisers and for prosecuting disciplinary actions against such persons. § 455.225, Fla. Stat. (2005). The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board ("Board") is the state agency charged with regulating, licensing, and disciplining real estate appraisers registered, licensed, or certified in Florida. § 475.613(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rutan was a certified residential real estate appraiser in Florida, having been issued a license numbered RD 2791. Mr. Rutan had been a certified residential real estate appraiser in Florida for approximately 10 years. At the time of the events giving rise to this action, Mr. Rutan was employed by Excel Appraisal. Mr. Rutan interviewed and hired Frank Delgado, Juan Carlos Suarez, and Ricardo Tundador to work at Excel Appraisal as state-registered assistant real estate appraisers. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rutan was Mr. Suarez’s supervisor and was responsible for Mr. Suarez’s appraisals. On or about June 16, 1999, Mr. Suarez prepared an appraisal for property located at 9690 Northwest 35th Street, Coral Springs, Florida, in which he valued the property at $325,000. The property is a multi-family, four-plex property. Mr. Rutan signed Mr. Suarez's appraisal as the supervisory appraiser and certified on the appraisal that he had inspected the property by placing an “X” in the "Inspect Property" box. The appraisal form signed by Mr. Rutan contains a "Supervisory Appraiser's Certification" that provides: If a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, her or she certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. It is the custom in the industry that a supervisory appraiser who certifies that he or she has inspected the property in question must inspect the property inside as well as outside before he or she can sign the appraisal. Mr. Rutan inspected the property the day after he signed the appraisal and only inspected the property from the outside. The appraisal report on the property at issue herein listed a prior sale of the property from Rodney Way to Doyle Aaron for $325,000 on April 28, 1999. The appraisal failed to list the sale of the property on the same day from Julius Ohren to Rodney Way for $230,000. Mr. Rutan did not investigate the relevant sales history of the property and was unaware, therefore, that the property had been “flipped” and was considerably overvalued in the appraisal report.2 Mr. Rutan admitted that he did not investigate prior sales and that the property was substantially overvalued. Mr. Suarez listed in the appraisal report three "comparable sales," that is, sales of properties similar in type and location to the property being appraised, to support the valuation of $350,000. The first comparable property used in the appraisal was property located at 4102 Riverside Drive, Coral Springs, which was listed in the appraisal report as being previously sold for $315,000. Earlier on the day that the Riverside Drive property was sold for $315,000, however, it had been sold for $185,000. Mr. Rutan failed to research and review the sales of the comparable properties that were included in Mr. Suarez's appraisal report, and the "comparable sale" of property on Riverside Drive was not properly used to value the property that was the subject of the appraisal report at issue herein. Mr. Suarez failed to make the proper adjustments in value on the Riverside Drive property based on the features of that property that were superior to the features of the subject property. The Riverside Drive property was located on a canal and should have had a negative adjustment with respect to the subject property, which was not on a canal. Mr. Suarez included a positive adjustment in the comparable sales data for the Riverside Drive property. Mr. Rutan failed to review the comparable property adjustments submitted by Juan Carlos Suarez for the appraisal of the subject property. Mr. Suarez overstated the rental income of the subject property in his appraisal report. Mr. Rutan failed to research and review the rental figures Mr. Suarez submitted. When Mr. Rutan was notified by Brokers Funding, a company that purchased the loans on the subject property, that there were problems with the appraisal done by Mr. Suarez, Mr. Rutan checked additional comparable sales and interviewed the tenants in the building. He also hired another appraiser to conduct an appraisal of the subject property. Based on his investigation and Mr. Salimino’s appraisal, Mr. Rutan discovered the problems in Mr. Suarez's appraisal and report of the subject property. Mr. Salimino’s appraisal for the subject property was $290,000, but Mr. Rutan estimated that his appraisal would have been approximately $250,000. Mr. Rutan fired Mr. Suarez, as well as Frank Delgado, and Ricardo Tundador, all three of whom were subsequently indicted on federal charges relating to real-estate-appraisal scams. In a Final Order entered on April 22, 2002, Mr. Rutan was found guilty by the Board of violating Sections 475.624(14) and 475.624(15), Florida Statutes, and was ordered to pay an administrative fine of $1,000. Mr. Rutan trusted Mr. Suarez to do an honest and competent appraisal and was rushed by Mr. Suarez to approve the appraisal on the subject property. The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Rutan failed to carry out his responsibilities as Mr. Suarez's supervisory appraiser, failed to review Juan Carlos Suarez’s appraisal for accuracy, and failed to inspect the inside of the subject property, which caused or contributed to the substantially over-stated valuation of the subject property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board enter a final order finding that William Rutan is guilty of violating Section 475.624(10), (14), and (15), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint and revoking Mr. Rutan's Florida certification as a real estate appraiser. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2005.
